Quite strange that all this attention is being given to this man to get him sent to Sweden to answer questions that only turned up after America said they wanted him and to do it just before his request for asylum is considered is even stranger.

And for the British Government to threaten to enter an Embassy to seize some one who has not even been charged with a crime is a bit OTT, I wonder how the UK would respond if the same thing was threatened to one of their Embassy's.

Should Britain engage in this dangerous precedent it would show, once again,that 'we' are Americas poodle.The decision to revoke diplomatic status in order to pursue an alleged criminal could have serious ramifications for British officials and civilians abroad.

A decision like this would bring into sharp focus the apparent inability of this Government to deport criminals who are a danger to the public and the ,as yet unknown,status as regards Gary Mckinnon.

If it is the case that Assange is genuine in his fear that the assault charges are a ruse to enable his extradition to Sweden then ultimate 'redaction' to the USA he has only himself to blame and placing Ecuador in an unenviable position has not helped his case.

If the Swedish authority had really wanted him they could have interviewed him here then charged him with the alleged offences, once he is in Sweden nobody if going to say any thing if one day he shows up in America by "accident".

Rather an unusual situation, but there is merit in the suggestion made by fourm member about people turning up at Ecuador's embassies worldwide.

I think I would like to have been a 'fly on the wall' at all discussions on this subject as the legal and diplomatic arguments would have been fascinating. How it will all turn out will also be interesting for the future of diplomacy. Consider the effect if this consideration had been put into effect during the Libyan embassy shooting.

The threat to enter the Embassy, in this case, is way OTT. This law was brought in to avoid a repeat of the Libyan Embassy situation when a police woman was shot from within an embassy. He need not be granted safe passage, so let him "rot" where he is for now, and arrest him if and when he tries to leave.

This case gets worse the longer it lasts and the response from the authority's is more akin to a multiple killer, this man was not even thought to have any thing to answer to until Swedish Director of Prosecution Marianne Ny reopened the case after the original warrants had been dropped .

"She tells AFP that overturning another prosecutor's decision was "not an ordinary (procedure)"

Quote "I don't think there is reason to suspect that he has committed rape," says one of Stockholm's chief prosecutors, Eva Finne."

carver - I think that you are maligning the Swedish. They are protective of their independence. Your last post is irrelevant to whether the Ecuadorian Embassy should be entered or not. The UK Supreme Court decided that the extradition could go ahead but did not consider the substance of the accusations. It is now about how the extradition takes place. I do not think it is wise to enter an Embassy. It could set a dangerous precedent whereby other countries could enter Embassies.

An embassy is inviolate - Article 22 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations:

1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter
them, except with the consent of the head of the mission.
2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises
of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the
mission or impairment of its dignity.
3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of
transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.

The Vienna Convention has effect in English law because of the Diplomatic Privileges Act 1964